Gauging Consensus on Logotypes: (Was Re: New draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-08.txt)

[wpolk@xxxxxxxx]

Folks,

I have been reviewing the list, and have been unable to determine whether the 
current draft represents rough consensus or not.  Denis has submitted comments 
that the editors have not addressed, believing that the current content 
represents the collective position of the WG.  The list has been silent 
regarding these topics.  As a result, I have only been able to determine the 
opinions of the editors and Denis.

I intend to conduct a strawpoll at the meeting tomorrow; I would appreciate it 
if those who are *not* in attendance this week and have an opinion would voice 
it on the list.  If the current specification represents rough consensus, we 
will forward the specification to the ADs.  If not, we will ask the editors to 
make the appropriate changes and then forward the resulting draft.

Thanks,

Tim Polk


Quoting Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>:

> 
> > There is a new logotypes draft 08 available from:
> > 
> > http://www.addtrust.com/pub/logotypes-08_dr03.txt
> > or from:
> >
> ftp://ftp.rsasecurity.com/pub/rsalabs/tmp/draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-08.txt
> > 
> > This draft support inclusion of multiple community logos.
> > There is still support for audio.
> > 
> > It is the authors view that this reflects the rough consensus of this
> list
> > and that it take care of the comments raised during WG last call.
> 
> The following comments that have ben raised during the last call have not 
> been solved:
> 
> 3. Page 7. Section 4.1 Extension format
> 
> There is no text which states what the client should do whenever it is
> unable to support a given logotype. Insert the following text:
> 
>   "Whenever a client is unable to support a given logotype, no error SHALL
> be
>   reported and the client MUST behave as if there was no logotype included
> in
>   the certificate".
> 
> This raises the point that section 3 is still incorrect:
> 
>     "This specification defines two types of logotype data: image data and
>     audio data. Implementations MUST support image data; however, support
>     for audio data is OPTIONAL."
> 
> There are no implementations that MUST support image data, since display is
> 
> optional. However, we should define what is a client *capable of* displaying
> 
> logotypes. We currently can't since comment 7 has not been addressed.
> 
> In the same way since it seems that this (?!?!) audio logotype is likely to
> 
> stay, we should define what is a client capable of playing a logotype.
> 
> Proposed text:
> 
>     This specification defines two types of logotype data: image data and
>     audio data. Implementations claiming conformance with this document
>     MUST be able to support image data with some minimum caracteristics;
>     however, they MAY also be able to support audio data, with some
>     minimum caracteristics."
> 
> It is also proposed to add that key sentence to the abstract, which is 
> currently too short:
> 
>     This document specifies a certificate extension for including
>     logotypes in public key certificates and attribute certificates.
> 
> 7. Page 9. Section 4.1.
> 
>         LogotypeImageInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
>            fileSize        INTEGER,  -- In octets
>            xSize           INTEGER,  -- In pixels
>            ySize           INTEGER,  -- In pixels
>            numColors       INTEGER } -- In bits
> 
>   It is of particular importance to say what means conformance to this
>   document for a client with respect to the number of pixels to support and
>   the colors to support.
> 
>   It is proposed to add a sentence along these lines:
> 
>   "Clients claiming to conform with this document SHALL support an image
> with
>   a minimum size of 48 pixels (xSize) by 32 pixels (ySize) in black and
> white
>   with X grey levels."
> 
> Denis
> 
> > This draft, or an agreed update to this draft, will be posted to ID
> directly
> > after the Atlanta meeting.
> > 
> > /Stefan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>[mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Housley, Russ
> >>Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:17 PM
> >>To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
> >>Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-07.txt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>This update captures the things that have agreed.  The biggest change is
> >>the support in the syntax for color and gray scale images.  Many other
> >>little changes are included.
> >>
> >>As I see it, there are two open issues:
> >>    1) Removal of audio; and
> >>    2) Support for more than one logotype in each of the categories
> >>
> >>These two topics are still being discussed on the list.
> >>
> >>Russ
> >>
> >>
> >>>        Title           : Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure:
> >>>Logotypes in
> >>>                          X.509 certificates
> >>>        Author(s)       : S. Santesson, R. Housley, T. Freeman
> >>>        Filename        : draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-07.txt
> >>>        Pages           : 21
> >>>        Date            : 2002-10-28
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>